On Jun 11, 2008, at 9:07 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
we have discussed both options a month ago, and there were quite a concensus to get these changes into a postponed 2.0, instead of delivering a 2.0 and including changes into a 3.0.Now the environment has changed a bit in the last few weeks, and we have a lot of thing to do in order to get a 2.0 out, even if we don't include the ByteBuffer rewrite.IMHO, we can go for a documented 2.0 for the moment (and it will take a while), and start a branch for 3.0.
whoops! silly me for missing that :) must have been buried in a thread i glazed over :)
anyways, yes, i agree with a documented and cleaned up 2.0, with more substantial changes in a separate branch for the time being. we've been promising 2.0 for a LOOONG time, so i think we owe it to the community to deliver upon that.
-pete -- (peter.royal|osi)@pobox.com - http://fotap.org/~osi
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
